Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion

I'm a lawyer and science fiction writer. One of the things I have to deal with professionally are moments where the other side in a debate convinces me that they're right and I'm wrong. I know what you're thinking - "you're not a good lawyer if that happens!" Or, "your job isn't to care about which side is right or wrong." But come on. Doctors know when a patient is going to die on them. Engineers know when a products going to be a piece of trash. And lawyers are on the losing side exactly half the time.

Because of that I really like antagonists who have the stronger argument and the narrative gives the readers a "oh shoot" moment when they realize this might not be a riding off happily into the sunset story.

But my question has to do with the characters and what it says about them. In Blade Runner does it make Deckard into a figure like Hans Landa? Do you think readers would like to be challenged that characters they were with the whole book and like/care about, might actually be bad people for refusing to empathize with the "bad" guy's argument? Should good guys change course when confronted with questions about what they are doing in the first place?

I'm more interested in the conversation and people's thoughts than anything else. But I am also hunting for some advanced reviewers for my own sci-fi take on this topic.

An interesting concept, Nathan. I have an antagonist who is charismatic, and likeable, but his motivation is not good. The protagonist almost joined him, but for his own reasons. Mainly to learn more. But to switch who is good and who is bad is something I've not tried.
I'm unsure it would work in fantasy (which is one of the two genres I write in) as it's not one of the accepted tropes. Having said that, killing off main characters, a la George RR Martin, isn't an accepted trope either.
And in one of my novellas (fantasy) I deal with domestic abuse and drug addiction, which aren't usual tropes, either. So perhaps it could work.

Personally, I think having a likeable villain - or at least something you could like about them - makes them a more complex and believable character. I have two villains in my novel Floodtide - which means I can have conflict from them in two separate locations. (Similarly I have two heroes. Shakespeare also did this sometimes!) One of them, particularly, is a character who does inspire a sneaking sympathy sometimes, particularly when he is the only person who can rescue some tribal members during a natural disaster. I don't think that's a wrong thing at all - and it doesn't make them the more likeable most of the time. We all have our opinions, and some more than most, and the most believable villains will be people who often do bad things, but will sometimes be able to do something good as well. Likewise, heroes aren't always that loveable. I think being more than just a good or bad person all the time makes the characters more interesting.

I would be interested in reading (and reviewing) your book. It's an interesting idea. You can pm me on [email protected]

As with 'beauty', the perception of who or what is good or bad lies within the eyes of the beholder. A fictionsl character perceived to be evil and abhorent by one reader may very well be seen as clever and likeable or merely misunderstood by another.

There are also tons of historical cases of people who are basically good people fighting for the wrong cause. One such person was Kapitan Otto Kretschmer, a German submarine top ace in WW2 who was captured by the British in 1940 after sinking dozens of British ships. He then spent the next years in a POW camp in Canada. While not a Nazi, he was fiercely patriotic but always fought cleanly, often taking risks to provide help to survivors from the ships he sank. He ended up joining the new German Navy after the war, attaining the rank of vice-admiral and serving with NATO. A small book on him, The Golden Horseshoe: The Wartime Career of Otto Kretschmer, U-Boat Ace inspired me in writing a historical fiction novel, The Lone Wolf, in which Kretschmer is given command of a new, advanced secret submarine in 1940 and goes on to cause tons of grief to the Allies.

So-called bad guys can in my opinion make as interesting and captivating primary characters as good guys in fiction novels and can help authors spice up their stories.

V.M. wrote: "An interesting concept, Nathan. I have an antagonist who is charismatic, and likeable, but his motivation is not good. The protagonist almost joined him, but for his own reasons. Mainly to learn mo..."

VM,

Thanks, I'll give you a shout. Your point about genre conventions is really interesting. I suspect that one of the reasons it might be a bit less common in fantasy is it kills some of the fantasy? If the bad guys have some good points it is a lot harder to ride in on your horse, kill them all, and then head back to the tavern for a celebratory pint.

If anything, when it comes to fantasy, what might be more common is injecting some humanity into the bad guy to make them scarier. If you look at Game of Thrones the humanizing that happens with a lot of the bad guys seems to transform them from just a generic evil bad guy into someone you could believe you might encounter one day in the real world.

Nathan

Helen wrote: "Personally, I think having a likeable villain - or at least something you could like about them - makes them a more complex and believable character. I have two villains in my novel Floodtide - whi..."

Hi Helen,

The way I conceptualize characters is that they fit into different social arenas. A character has one kind of relationship with her family, another kind of relationship with the world generally, another kind of relationship with their "work friends". I think one of the interesting things about Darth Vader was that he had colleagues he had one kind of relationship with, he had a boss he had a completely different relationship with, and he had business partners who again he had a completely different relationship with. It gave him a ton of depth to see him through different lenses.

Because I like to view characters that way I almost by accident end up with multiple bad guys who are only semi-aligned and often work at cross purposes.

Jim wrote: "As with 'beauty', the perception of who or what is good or bad lies within the eyes of the beholder. A fictionsl character perceived to be evil and abhorent by one reader may very well be seen as c..."

Hi Jim,

That's a very fair point and raises a bit of a question about what art is. Personally I think art needs to be open to interpretation. The only thing you are supposed to read and take away the exact same thing as everyone else is an instruction manual.

With that said... Alan Moore certainly was pretty upset that so many people liked Rorschach.

Michel wrote: "There are also tons of historical cases of people who are basically good people fighting for the wrong cause. One such person was Kapitan Otto Kretschmer, a German submarine top ace in WW2 who was ..."

There are a lot of really, really, skilled people out there who spend their lives in service to the wrong cause. I wonder though if that isn't the definition of a tragedy?

I suspect there's a bias in people to admire exceptional people for things outside of that person's true talent and it makes for disappointment at what could have been.

Do you view Kretschmer as a tragic figure, blinded by patriotism so much so that he kills thousands for an evil government? I ran into a gentleman who flew in the luftwaffe during the war and I always wondered how he must feel looking back on his wartime service. I really didn't think it was my place to ask him that though.

Great question. I'm often called out for my villains because people love them. They love them because the motivation for their bad deeds makes sense. So I can make these characters sympathetic (which in my mind means that they are unforgetable and relatable on some level) without making them the good guy in the same way the good guy doesn't become the bad guy when he fails. Since my heroes are never perfect, the point at which these two meet and must take their stand is dramatic and relatable.

Nathan wrote: "Do you view Kretschmer as a tragic figure, blinded by patriotism so much so that he kills thousands for an evil government? ..."

Killing in war as a genuine combattant (army, navy or airforce) is very different from killing in order to commit a crime (theft, rape, sadism, etc.). Most combattants fight and kill (and can also be killed) in order to either protect or serve his/her country. The great majority of these combattants don't like to kill or even hurt others but have to do it simply to survive (kill or be killed). Otto Kretschmer was not in my opinion a cold-blooded killer, on the contrary. As I said in my post, he often took risks to help the survivors from the ships he sank, by surfacing to give them food, water and directions towards a safe land. Also, don't forget that most Germans in 1939 resented the years of hardships and privations caused by the harsh terms of the Versailles Treaty of 1918. Kretschmer was for me a basically decent man who believed in serving his country (vs serving the Nazis) and who happened to be a great submarine commander. If we want to talk about truly evil characters in war, then the SS Totempkof guards of German concentration camps were the perfect example of such evil characters. I would never imagine writing a story in which such SS guards could be painted as sympathical. On the other side of the fence, some Allied officers and soldiers, while serving the 'good side', would have deserved to be called 'evil' and 'despicable'. As a reverse of Kretschmer, one American submarine commander (can't remember his name), who also happened to be a Quaker (supposed to be pacifists who never kill) ordered his crew to machinegun in the water survivors from a Japanese ship he had just torpedoed. That American commander may have served the good side but he was definitely not a good guy in my opinion. The same applied to 'Sir' Arthur Harris, the chief of the British Bomber Command, who insisted on continuing the policy of deliberate bombing of German civilians (including the Dresden Fire Bombing) in order to 'break the enemy civilian morale'. So, I say that the cause espoused by some character does not automatically make him/her either good or evil. In the case of politicians, the difference is however much more clear cut. Politicians start wars, not the soldiers, and thus must bear the main responsibility for the evil caused during wars.

My actual personal experience leads me to agree with the several examples emphasized by Michael in message 13.

During the first couple of months of my 13-month combat tour as a U.S. Marine in Viet-Nam, I did the things I did because I had to, but gradually came to realize that I was doing the things I did because I wanted to.

The brutality, killing, and instinctual retaliation experienced in war, more often than not, bring out the worst in many. The survival instinct and desire for revenge supercede the more civilized behavorial lessons learned while growing up.

I'm not saying there are a lot, but some heroes and villains can change roles depending on which angle and side you are at, especially regarding survival, protecting the safety of the people or resources. I would agree with what many have said, that it would be more realistic to have complex villains. On some cases, there are possibilities that we might even be sympathetic with their causes.

Some examples that I can think of from popular cultures: Khan, Thanos, even Walter White, and many from GoT series (books not the dang TV series)

Michel wrote: "Nathan wrote: "Do you view Kretschmer as a tragic figure, blinded by patriotism so much so that he kills thousands for an evil government? ..."

Killing in war as a genuine combattant (army, navy ..."

We certainly have different narratives that we tell ourselves about our actions, but the actions themselves are the same. We really shouldn't discount the power of those narratives though. They are immensely impactful on how we process what we have done and live with ourselves, and how we, societies, and history, judge the conduct of others. Almost no one ever goes off to fight a war thinking that they are the bad guy in the conflict, yet most of the time they are.

WW2 Germany is an interesting example because it was so clearly an evil government, with evil goals, using evil means.

But anyways, this is very much entering the world of philosophy, while we can certainly all agree that a German submarine commander could make a wonderful character study.

Sotto wrote: "I'm not saying there are a lot, but some heroes and villains can change roles depending on which angle and side you are at, especially regarding survival, protecting the safety of the people or res..."

Jamie Lannister went through such a rehabilitation as a character I was absolutely blown away. For me he's a top ten character.

Nathan wrote: "Sotto wrote: "I'm not saying there are a lot, but some heroes and villains can change roles depending on which angle and side you are at, especially regarding survival, protecting the safety of the..."

Agree, I think he is my top three.

I think it is important to set up your villains, or anti-heroes, as strongly as possible. if they have a moral standpoint that you disagree with, make it as strong as possible. in this way you make the character believable, complex and nuanced. anything less, almost makes them too thin and like villains from a children's book.
to be able to "defeat" that moral standpoint throughout the novel, makes it an achievement and exciting to read.
The best book for this, I've read, is The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky - one brother believes morality is a waste of time and he puts together a hell of an argument for it.